The sounds of silence............Nov 27th
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Baulkham Hills.
Age: 53
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sounds of silence............Nov 27th
Just wanted to get some ideas on how people felt today, both IFR and VFR.
After todays new airspace regs, I felt unfullfilled. I landed back at base feeling like I didn't do any work. Today I was VFR, but in my job I do about 50% IFR. It was weird listening to silence on ML Centre for around 10 minutes at a time! Total silence! Even the controllers sounded down and bored when they made calls. I even heard one make the mistake of telling a 737 to call Centre aproaching FL200 for clearence, instead of FL118. Easy mistake to make. It was good, actually. Helped to break the dead silence for a second or two longer as it was discussed and corrected.
Anyway. Good? Bad? Indifferent? What's your say?
........................................H.
After todays new airspace regs, I felt unfullfilled. I landed back at base feeling like I didn't do any work. Today I was VFR, but in my job I do about 50% IFR. It was weird listening to silence on ML Centre for around 10 minutes at a time! Total silence! Even the controllers sounded down and bored when they made calls. I even heard one make the mistake of telling a 737 to call Centre aproaching FL200 for clearence, instead of FL118. Easy mistake to make. It was good, actually. Helped to break the dead silence for a second or two longer as it was discussed and corrected.
Anyway. Good? Bad? Indifferent? What's your say?
........................................H.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR out of Jandakot today and PH Radar was also very quiet. I turned the squelch off a few times to make sure I hadn't turned off the audio.
Only one or two still making the usual "all stations blah blah blah" calls.
Only one or two still making the usual "all stations blah blah blah" calls.
Travelair, you can download NAS documentation from here;
http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/whats_new.htm
The Inflight Guide is quite comprehensive. I've been out of the aviation scene in Oz fr some time so it's new to me too.
Class E airspace above Class D looks interesting .... kinda like "plane spotters paradise" for those hard to get air-to-air shots ....
http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/whats_new.htm
The Inflight Guide is quite comprehensive. I've been out of the aviation scene in Oz fr some time so it's new to me too.
Class E airspace above Class D looks interesting .... kinda like "plane spotters paradise" for those hard to get air-to-air shots ....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: a galaxy far away (NT)
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NT NAS
Most of us in the NT flying VFR are still making Top of Descent calls on area............... A few are making calls on ctaf it appears TOD which is ok i guess if you are low enough but i just feel that from 9500 @ 50nm + theres alot to hit on the way down! And as far as the freq boundaries, i've just copied them in highlighter onto my own post NAS ERC chart.
ATC have been pretty good at going out of their way at pointing out vfr paints to RPT aircraft, more so than usual it seems.
Overall the only good thing to come out of it is that it appears in the past two days most everone is a little more vigilant and maybe thinking a lil bit more than usual, i know i am!
Lets just wait until everything settles down and the vigilance relaxes........HMMMM
ATC have been pretty good at going out of their way at pointing out vfr paints to RPT aircraft, more so than usual it seems.
Overall the only good thing to come out of it is that it appears in the past two days most everone is a little more vigilant and maybe thinking a lil bit more than usual, i know i am!
Lets just wait until everything settles down and the vigilance relaxes........HMMMM
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To HighBypass and others who have copied the old FIA boundaries onto their new charts,
When Dick decided to remove FIA boundaries from the charts he freed ASA from the previously onerous process of changing the boundaries to better suit their requirements.
As a result they can now change FIA boundaries virtually at will, there have been a swathe of mostly minor changes that came in on the 27th which they didn't have to tell anyone about. After all VFR don't need to know about them! they will "see and avoid". At least thats what Dick says and he must know.
The moral to this story is that if you are VFR and attempting to continue maintaining listening watch on area as you did before the 27th, the FIA boundaries you are using may have changed, even if they haven't yet they may do in the future.
I salute any VFR pilot that recognises the value in radio as a tool to avoid conflictions with other traffic, but just continuing on as you did before the revolution won't necessarily work. If you believe that the old system contributed to your safety, voice your opinion - to your local paper, Member of Parliament and if you are a member, to AOPA.
When Dick decided to remove FIA boundaries from the charts he freed ASA from the previously onerous process of changing the boundaries to better suit their requirements.
As a result they can now change FIA boundaries virtually at will, there have been a swathe of mostly minor changes that came in on the 27th which they didn't have to tell anyone about. After all VFR don't need to know about them! they will "see and avoid". At least thats what Dick says and he must know.
The moral to this story is that if you are VFR and attempting to continue maintaining listening watch on area as you did before the 27th, the FIA boundaries you are using may have changed, even if they haven't yet they may do in the future.
I salute any VFR pilot that recognises the value in radio as a tool to avoid conflictions with other traffic, but just continuing on as you did before the revolution won't necessarily work. If you believe that the old system contributed to your safety, voice your opinion - to your local paper, Member of Parliament and if you are a member, to AOPA.
FIA boundaries are still avbl here
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/.../aip/index.asp
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/.../aip/index.asp
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descended out of control airspace into class G today. As a result of the new rules, the two opposite traffic guys who`s level I descended through probably didn`t know about me until I saw them. About 15 sec before we crossed . Luckly I wasn`t using G.P.S and was about 1/4 mile off track. I didn`t think the change was that big an issue until today. Only a matter of time.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm Topdrop.... All I found was this incongruous entry under "other"
11. ATS AREA FREQUENCIES AT UNCONTROLLED AERODROMES
11.1. These are shown on en route and terminal charts.
11. ATS AREA FREQUENCIES AT UNCONTROLLED AERODROMES
11.1. These are shown on en route and terminal charts.
WhatWasThat, the reason the FIA boundaries have been removed from the charts is for the primary purpose of reducing the number of unalerted see and avoid incidents we get in MBZs and CTAFs. I suggest you check with the ATSB – there are thousands of incidents where pilots are on not on the correct radio frequency.
When you ask the Americans why they do not have area frequency boundaries on charts, they will tell you quite clearly that it is so pilots will concentrate on monitoring the approach and departure airspace of an airport where the collision risk is highest. A typical two-hour enroute flight for a VFR aircraft, when monitoring area frequencies, results in listening to dozens of calls that are completely irrelevant. When the pilot reaches the approach and departure airspace of an airport, there is a chance that the pilot will consider that the calls are similarly irrelevant.
Also, where could a typical VFR pilot (say flying below 7,000’) collide with an IFR pressurised airline aircraft? Yes, you have the answer – in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. The new appropriate frequency recommendations make it quite clear that when enroute, even if 30 or 40 miles from an aerodrome, that the aerodrome frequency should be monitored if flying in the airspace that could be used for approach and departure. Nothing could be more logical.
Flying enroute with the equivalent of a taxi radio in your ear the whole time not only leads to complacency but also adds to stress.
I feel sure that the international system we are following will lead to higher safety. I believe it is a bit like moving from 4 engine Electra aircraft, to 2 engine 767s. The perception of many people would be that the aircraft with 2 engines would be less safe, however we know that it is actually safer.
By the way, the comments in relation to the quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made. When TAAATS was originally purchased it was planned to be operated with 50 ATC sectors. I understand that currently during peak times there are 104 sectors. By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.
When you ask the Americans why they do not have area frequency boundaries on charts, they will tell you quite clearly that it is so pilots will concentrate on monitoring the approach and departure airspace of an airport where the collision risk is highest. A typical two-hour enroute flight for a VFR aircraft, when monitoring area frequencies, results in listening to dozens of calls that are completely irrelevant. When the pilot reaches the approach and departure airspace of an airport, there is a chance that the pilot will consider that the calls are similarly irrelevant.
Also, where could a typical VFR pilot (say flying below 7,000’) collide with an IFR pressurised airline aircraft? Yes, you have the answer – in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. The new appropriate frequency recommendations make it quite clear that when enroute, even if 30 or 40 miles from an aerodrome, that the aerodrome frequency should be monitored if flying in the airspace that could be used for approach and departure. Nothing could be more logical.
Flying enroute with the equivalent of a taxi radio in your ear the whole time not only leads to complacency but also adds to stress.
I feel sure that the international system we are following will lead to higher safety. I believe it is a bit like moving from 4 engine Electra aircraft, to 2 engine 767s. The perception of many people would be that the aircraft with 2 engines would be less safe, however we know that it is actually safer.
By the way, the comments in relation to the quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made. When TAAATS was originally purchased it was planned to be operated with 50 ATC sectors. I understand that currently during peak times there are 104 sectors. By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.
Welcome back Dick. Please continue to engage..
Here is the crunch...
Okay so AirServices which is what? a GBE now? will save money. They pay a dividend to their one and only shareholder, the Australian Government. So that becomes consolidated revenue. Do you really expect us to believe that these funds will end up helping GA? Come on Dick. How?
How come the ATCOs on here as well as those I speak to every day day tell me it will cost more? How come Ken Matthews is on record as saying it may cost more or save money they don't know. There it is in Hansard for all to read.
Here is the crunch...
quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made. .... . By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.
How come the ATCOs on here as well as those I speak to every day day tell me it will cost more? How come Ken Matthews is on record as saying it may cost more or save money they don't know. There it is in Hansard for all to read.
As a mostly-VFR helicopter driver, I agree with most of what Dick says.
I am pleased that I will no longer hear the bugsmashers self-announcing as they drone up and down the Hornsby lane or the training machines self-announcing their ops in the training area and then asking for QNH despite having just departed a GAAP airfield.
However, I do miss the nice big area frequency marked on the map - having 2 radios means I can listen to the CTAfs as I go by, but also need to hear Centre talking to Aeroduck as they climb or descend, away from Pelican's CTAF.
I don't see how making a pilot stick his head in the cockpit, searching for an appropriate frequency, will make it safer.
I am pleased that I will no longer hear the bugsmashers self-announcing as they drone up and down the Hornsby lane or the training machines self-announcing their ops in the training area and then asking for QNH despite having just departed a GAAP airfield.
However, I do miss the nice big area frequency marked on the map - having 2 radios means I can listen to the CTAfs as I go by, but also need to hear Centre talking to Aeroduck as they climb or descend, away from Pelican's CTAF.
I don't see how making a pilot stick his head in the cockpit, searching for an appropriate frequency, will make it safer.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ascend Charlie:
I think that if your ops require you to monitor a certain frequency, and you are aware of this duringthe planning phase, then its not too diffciult to look these up before you fly and write them down as required.
Andy
I don't see how making a pilot stick his head in the cockpit, searching for an appropriate frequency, will make it safer.
Andy
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Dick, when I'm flogging around below 7,000 ft, I'm not all that interested in the traffic at all the piddly little CTAFs that I overfly, unless I'm below 3000 ft AGLs. In the past, all IFRs made a broadcast on the area frequency to indicate their intentions, so it was easier to assess relevant traffic then.
BUT Dick, you have described the perfect scenario for a collision by allowing unnotified traffic to occupy airspace used by controlled IFR traffic.
If we could be 100% sure the low time VFR pilot
1. is on the right frequency,
2. knows his VMC requirements,
3. has his transponder on
4. and it's working
5. understands what is happening between ATC and the IFR traffic,
6. will not be scared of speaking up,
7. knows the holding patterns for that airport,
Maybe there’s a chance…..
BUT DICK, I know there is a high probability that any combination of 1-7 will not occur.
BUT DICK, if I choose to overfly a D zone, I'll have to avoid the departure/approach paths and the relevant holding patterns that for me and many others, the details have to be gotten from AsA's website. This is not easy. Albury, for example has six separate approaches each with their own holding pattern. To avoid these, I'll have to make a sizable diversion. Much easier in the past by getting a clearance and letting ATC worry about that.
AS WELL DICK it's not going to save ME a cent.
AND if Airservices had had better frequency management, we could have avoided all this expensive NAS navel gazing.
AND DICK, everyone makes mistakes. Even you, when you didn’t follow your approach clearance when you came down south recently. We were too busy to do anything about it, and we’d be seen to be picking on you anyway. Just lucky there wasn’t a pesky little VFRy out there to get in your way and get my ticket suspended.
CG
BUT Dick, you have described the perfect scenario for a collision by allowing unnotified traffic to occupy airspace used by controlled IFR traffic.
If we could be 100% sure the low time VFR pilot
1. is on the right frequency,
2. knows his VMC requirements,
3. has his transponder on
4. and it's working
5. understands what is happening between ATC and the IFR traffic,
6. will not be scared of speaking up,
7. knows the holding patterns for that airport,
Maybe there’s a chance…..
BUT DICK, I know there is a high probability that any combination of 1-7 will not occur.
BUT DICK, if I choose to overfly a D zone, I'll have to avoid the departure/approach paths and the relevant holding patterns that for me and many others, the details have to be gotten from AsA's website. This is not easy. Albury, for example has six separate approaches each with their own holding pattern. To avoid these, I'll have to make a sizable diversion. Much easier in the past by getting a clearance and letting ATC worry about that.
AS WELL DICK it's not going to save ME a cent.
AND if Airservices had had better frequency management, we could have avoided all this expensive NAS navel gazing.
AND DICK, everyone makes mistakes. Even you, when you didn’t follow your approach clearance when you came down south recently. We were too busy to do anything about it, and we’d be seen to be picking on you anyway. Just lucky there wasn’t a pesky little VFRy out there to get in your way and get my ticket suspended.
CG
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick:
What a load of twaddle! Where is your empirical data to support such a claim? All pilots (even PPLs) are given sufficient training to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant communications and, in over 25 years of flying, I have found the majority of pilots are reasonably adept at this very, very smplistic task. This example is not sufficient grounds to remove frequency boundaries off a chart, for chrissakes!
I could, just as easily, throw the argument back to you that in-flight safety could be substantially improved if pilots were given the appropriate information on charts so that they could improve their situational awareness by listening to the enourte ATC frequencies so that they could hear IFR aircraft descending into, and taxying at, MBZ/CTAF aerodromes, particularly in an unalerted "see and avoid" traffic environment. I can't really quantify that statement either but, at least, I have more confidence of the acceptability of my statement within the pilot community compared to yours.
Dick, the ARG/NASIG's (and your) insistence on removing the frequency boundaries off charts is nothing short of bloody-mindedness in your slavish attempts to faithfully replicate the US airspace model. Against the wishes or many of us, you have foisted on us an unalerted see and avoid airspace environment that we believe presents considerably more collision risk and then, to make it worse, you "tie one hand behind our backs" by removing from the charts the very information that could at least help many of us to mitigate some of our in-flight risk under the new airspace.
You are right, of course, with respect to traffic conflicts arising from aircraft arriving and departing from aerodromes and I welcome the fact that aircraft operating in proximity to MBZs/CTAFs are now encouraged to monitor those frequencies from a greater distance. But this fact still doesn't warrant the removal of ATS frequency boundaries off the charts!
Who do I suddently talk to when my single engine quits? Oh I know, "Just pass me the ERSA from my flight bag in the back there please, while I take the time to look it up!" Got a flight plan amendment and you are outside the range of Flightwatch? No worries "I'll just look for the nearest Tim Tam box to get the ATS frequency. I havn't flown in Qld before, so where the f#@*& is Turkey Hill? Am I in VHF range (wherever it is)?"
Many pilots and controllers have presented well-reasoned safety arguments for frequency boundary retention under Australian airspace conditions, and your airspace teams don't even have the courtesy or the willingness to seriously consider our opinions or to resolve the issue. That's a really nice attitude to adopt considering we had no say in the NAS proposals in the first place. CASA continues to place a heavy emphasis on systemic safety and the need for SMS's for AOC holders and airports. Where's the effective safety management framework for considering individual pilot safety concerns?
I would propose to you Dick, and the rest of your ARG/NAS team, that, from a safety perspective, we all have EVERYTHING TO GAIN from retaining the frequency boundaries on the charts AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE! And, I seriously doubt that there is anything you can say in defence that will change my opinion.
A typical two-hour enroute flight for a VFR aircraft, when monitoring area frequencies, results in listening to dozens of calls that are completely irrelevant. When the pilot reaches the approach and departure airspace of an airport, there is a chance that the pilot will consider that the calls are similarly irrelevant
I could, just as easily, throw the argument back to you that in-flight safety could be substantially improved if pilots were given the appropriate information on charts so that they could improve their situational awareness by listening to the enourte ATC frequencies so that they could hear IFR aircraft descending into, and taxying at, MBZ/CTAF aerodromes, particularly in an unalerted "see and avoid" traffic environment. I can't really quantify that statement either but, at least, I have more confidence of the acceptability of my statement within the pilot community compared to yours.
Dick, the ARG/NASIG's (and your) insistence on removing the frequency boundaries off charts is nothing short of bloody-mindedness in your slavish attempts to faithfully replicate the US airspace model. Against the wishes or many of us, you have foisted on us an unalerted see and avoid airspace environment that we believe presents considerably more collision risk and then, to make it worse, you "tie one hand behind our backs" by removing from the charts the very information that could at least help many of us to mitigate some of our in-flight risk under the new airspace.
You are right, of course, with respect to traffic conflicts arising from aircraft arriving and departing from aerodromes and I welcome the fact that aircraft operating in proximity to MBZs/CTAFs are now encouraged to monitor those frequencies from a greater distance. But this fact still doesn't warrant the removal of ATS frequency boundaries off the charts!
Who do I suddently talk to when my single engine quits? Oh I know, "Just pass me the ERSA from my flight bag in the back there please, while I take the time to look it up!" Got a flight plan amendment and you are outside the range of Flightwatch? No worries "I'll just look for the nearest Tim Tam box to get the ATS frequency. I havn't flown in Qld before, so where the f#@*& is Turkey Hill? Am I in VHF range (wherever it is)?"
Many pilots and controllers have presented well-reasoned safety arguments for frequency boundary retention under Australian airspace conditions, and your airspace teams don't even have the courtesy or the willingness to seriously consider our opinions or to resolve the issue. That's a really nice attitude to adopt considering we had no say in the NAS proposals in the first place. CASA continues to place a heavy emphasis on systemic safety and the need for SMS's for AOC holders and airports. Where's the effective safety management framework for considering individual pilot safety concerns?
I would propose to you Dick, and the rest of your ARG/NAS team, that, from a safety perspective, we all have EVERYTHING TO GAIN from retaining the frequency boundaries on the charts AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE! And, I seriously doubt that there is anything you can say in defence that will change my opinion.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IFR aircraft does get a rather good (too good?) RAS descending through the training area in into BK or CN now - I've even been given information on non transponder equipped aircraft. I must admit though I only actually see about half the 'unverified' aircraft. Radar advice is given on simply heaps of them!
Who reckons the training area and the the lane should perhaps be CTAF? What do most listen to in this airspace now?
Who reckons the training area and the the lane should perhaps be CTAF? What do most listen to in this airspace now?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Dick,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to any attempt to create efficiencies in Air Traffic Control, I spend a great deal of time trying to do just that in my own small way. I think you will find that most ATCs hold the same view, particularly at this point in history where there are a large number of baby boomer ATCs approaching retirement, reducing the likelihood of any involuntary redundancies.
That said I have been critical of you and the NAS which you have championed and I will attempt to offer an explanation as to why that is so before I deal with the specifics of your post.
Firstly I am extremely dissatisfied with the lack of genuine consultation with stakeholders – the general perception is that any concerns or suggestions about this process have been dismissed out of hand. I believe this has contributed to the overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards NAS that exists in ATC today.
I firmly believe that this process has put the cart before the horse. My preference would have been for you and the ARG to express a set of objectives, i.e. Reduce the number of ATC sectors, Improve access to airspace for VFR etc and then sit down with the various stakeholders and have a conversation about how we can achieve these objectives. The NAS has been presented as a fait accompli, leaving us struggling to discern the operational concept behind the changes.
The Willoughby report was offensive to all ATCs, based as it was on flawed reasoning and an incomplete understanding of the existing ATC system. I found the statement that the average peak load for Australian ATC sectors is 1.4 IFR flights particularly amusing as I had just unplugged from my sector where I had been experiencing a peak load of approximately 20 IFR flights. The claims made in this document were in stark contrast to an independent review of Australian ATC by Eurocontrol which appeared at around the same time, this report indicated that Australian ATC are more productive than either US or European ATC.
The constant claims by NAS proponents that ATC opposition to NAS is due to industrial issues offend me and my colleagues. CIVILAIR is not the BLF, it is a professional association. Those ATCs who represent us through CIVILAIR give their time voluntarily; they make considerable sacrifices to undertake their duties. There can be no suggestion that CIVILAIR is pursuing its own agenda in this or any negotiation – any attack on CIVILAIR or its representatives will be seen by ATCs as a direct attack on their professionalism. No ATC is concerned for their livelihood as a result of the NAS 2B changes. ASA is currently in the process of the largest recruiting effort for many years, so I don’t suppose they see much chance of reducing the number of controllers either. The CIVILAIR position results from the overwhelming concerns of the membership about the safety and practicability of some of the characteristics of the NAS. Any suggestion that this opposition stems from greed or self interest impugns the professionalism of all ATCs.
The issue of “chart simplification” by removal of FIA boundaries is not wise in my opinion; I hold this view because I have heard the system work in my daily duties that include operating in a relatively busy non-radar class G environment. I have heard on many occasions VFR aircraft announce their presence to IFR aircraft on hearing a TOD call, I have no way of knowing whether this has prevented mid-air collisions or even a near miss, but it is a fact that IFR aircraft do frequently find themselves in proximity to VFRs whilst outside MBZs or CTAFs. I also believe from my conversations with pilots of high performance aircraft that “see and avoid” is not a sufficient basis for avoiding conflictions when piloting a fast moving aircraft, with a nose high attitude and a busy cockpit. The pre NAS2B system of FIA frequencies cost nothing to maintain and provided a useful “layer” of safety in the system.
On to your example of the VFR aircraft below A070 and the appropriate frequencies. I do not dispute the fact that most mid-airs occur in terminal areas. Assuming a descent profile of 3nm per thousand feet your figure of 30nm from a terminal area would seem to contain adequately the area of potential conflict for a VFR transiting near an aerodrome with any traffic operating to or from that aerodrome. It would seem reasonable then to assume that if the VFR monitors the frequency appropriate to the aerodrome that any conflicting traffic will be heard. The problem arises when there are several aerodromes within a 30nm radius of a given VFR aircraft, some or all of which may have discreet frequencies associated. If our hypothetical VFR finds himself 25nm from an aerodrome with an associated CTAF, 30nm from another aerodrome with a MBZ and overhead an aerodrome with no discreet freq (multicom), what frequency should he/she be monitoring? Can we really expect a pilot out for a joyflight to juggle frequencies in this fashion? It would seem to me that the chart simplification may not have simplified things at all. November 26 our VFR pilot could have expected to hear the broadcasts from IFR traffic arriving and departing all three aerodromes on area, now he/she will have to juggle frequencies depending on proximity to aerodromes, necessitating more “head down” map reading than the FIAs ever did.
The vast amount of opposition to this characteristic from both Commercial and many Private pilots should have been enough to cause a reassessment of its inclusion. I restate my opinion that this represents a reduction in safety for no discernible benefit.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to any attempt to create efficiencies in Air Traffic Control, I spend a great deal of time trying to do just that in my own small way. I think you will find that most ATCs hold the same view, particularly at this point in history where there are a large number of baby boomer ATCs approaching retirement, reducing the likelihood of any involuntary redundancies.
That said I have been critical of you and the NAS which you have championed and I will attempt to offer an explanation as to why that is so before I deal with the specifics of your post.
Firstly I am extremely dissatisfied with the lack of genuine consultation with stakeholders – the general perception is that any concerns or suggestions about this process have been dismissed out of hand. I believe this has contributed to the overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards NAS that exists in ATC today.
I firmly believe that this process has put the cart before the horse. My preference would have been for you and the ARG to express a set of objectives, i.e. Reduce the number of ATC sectors, Improve access to airspace for VFR etc and then sit down with the various stakeholders and have a conversation about how we can achieve these objectives. The NAS has been presented as a fait accompli, leaving us struggling to discern the operational concept behind the changes.
The Willoughby report was offensive to all ATCs, based as it was on flawed reasoning and an incomplete understanding of the existing ATC system. I found the statement that the average peak load for Australian ATC sectors is 1.4 IFR flights particularly amusing as I had just unplugged from my sector where I had been experiencing a peak load of approximately 20 IFR flights. The claims made in this document were in stark contrast to an independent review of Australian ATC by Eurocontrol which appeared at around the same time, this report indicated that Australian ATC are more productive than either US or European ATC.
The constant claims by NAS proponents that ATC opposition to NAS is due to industrial issues offend me and my colleagues. CIVILAIR is not the BLF, it is a professional association. Those ATCs who represent us through CIVILAIR give their time voluntarily; they make considerable sacrifices to undertake their duties. There can be no suggestion that CIVILAIR is pursuing its own agenda in this or any negotiation – any attack on CIVILAIR or its representatives will be seen by ATCs as a direct attack on their professionalism. No ATC is concerned for their livelihood as a result of the NAS 2B changes. ASA is currently in the process of the largest recruiting effort for many years, so I don’t suppose they see much chance of reducing the number of controllers either. The CIVILAIR position results from the overwhelming concerns of the membership about the safety and practicability of some of the characteristics of the NAS. Any suggestion that this opposition stems from greed or self interest impugns the professionalism of all ATCs.
The issue of “chart simplification” by removal of FIA boundaries is not wise in my opinion; I hold this view because I have heard the system work in my daily duties that include operating in a relatively busy non-radar class G environment. I have heard on many occasions VFR aircraft announce their presence to IFR aircraft on hearing a TOD call, I have no way of knowing whether this has prevented mid-air collisions or even a near miss, but it is a fact that IFR aircraft do frequently find themselves in proximity to VFRs whilst outside MBZs or CTAFs. I also believe from my conversations with pilots of high performance aircraft that “see and avoid” is not a sufficient basis for avoiding conflictions when piloting a fast moving aircraft, with a nose high attitude and a busy cockpit. The pre NAS2B system of FIA frequencies cost nothing to maintain and provided a useful “layer” of safety in the system.
On to your example of the VFR aircraft below A070 and the appropriate frequencies. I do not dispute the fact that most mid-airs occur in terminal areas. Assuming a descent profile of 3nm per thousand feet your figure of 30nm from a terminal area would seem to contain adequately the area of potential conflict for a VFR transiting near an aerodrome with any traffic operating to or from that aerodrome. It would seem reasonable then to assume that if the VFR monitors the frequency appropriate to the aerodrome that any conflicting traffic will be heard. The problem arises when there are several aerodromes within a 30nm radius of a given VFR aircraft, some or all of which may have discreet frequencies associated. If our hypothetical VFR finds himself 25nm from an aerodrome with an associated CTAF, 30nm from another aerodrome with a MBZ and overhead an aerodrome with no discreet freq (multicom), what frequency should he/she be monitoring? Can we really expect a pilot out for a joyflight to juggle frequencies in this fashion? It would seem to me that the chart simplification may not have simplified things at all. November 26 our VFR pilot could have expected to hear the broadcasts from IFR traffic arriving and departing all three aerodromes on area, now he/she will have to juggle frequencies depending on proximity to aerodromes, necessitating more “head down” map reading than the FIAs ever did.
The vast amount of opposition to this characteristic from both Commercial and many Private pilots should have been enough to cause a reassessment of its inclusion. I restate my opinion that this represents a reduction in safety for no discernible benefit.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
I feel sure that the international system we are following will lead to higher safety. I believe it is a bit like moving from 4 engine Electra aircraft, to 2 engine 767s. The perception of many people would be that the aircraft with 2 engines would be less safe, however we know that it is actually safer.
Apart from your feelings and beliefs, what statistics and empirical data can you offer to prove that NAS (i.e the US/hybrid system without the supporting infrastructure) will be safer?
By the way, the comments in relation to the quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made.
Pre NAS2b, a controller of Class C airspace would know about every aircraft in their airspace (because they talked to them, thus ‘clogging’ the frequency). Post NAS2b, that same controller is less able to combine sectors because of the increased constant vigilance required to look out for un-notified, unknown aircraft in class E. These unknown aircraft have to be individually spotted among all the other unidentified aircraft either above or below the controllers area of responsibility. Surely this in not another fact you are only now discovering “to your horror” .
Do you actually have a shred of fact, statistics or any research at all to back up your statements about sectorisation?
When TAAATS was originally purchased it was planned to be operated with 50 ATC sectors. I understand that currently during peak times there are 104 sectors. By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.
While it is still too early in the project to estimate the impact on sectorisation, the cost-effectiveness of NAS is likely to mean that rate of growth in the number of ATC sectors would be slowed, as opposed to the present number being reduced. This reduction in the rate of growth is due to better allocation of resources under the NAS model. However, this is balanced by the fact that traffic levels should continue to increase over time.
BTW, when you say that TAAATS was ‘designed to operate with 50 ATC sectors’, you are not conveniently ‘forgetting' that each of these sectors was to be staffed by an executive and a planner controller - two people per sector, as in the US - are you? Australia (in a first for TAAATS-like systems) has done away with the second person, thus effectively halving the number of controllers. But you already knew that didn’t you?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I think that the point mentioned previously that the frequency boundaries being removed has not simplified things for VFR ops is a very valid one. Flight Watch is sometimes very difficult to get in contact with and if they encounter inflight difficulties eg engine failure, a pan or mayday call may be made on deaf ears because the pilot is monitoring a freq that they are now outside of without knowing.
If this new system is supposed to give us more for less. Then why are our charts giving us far less information and they are jacking up the ERCs and TACs 300% from $3 to over $9 a chart. What crap. Surely this is less for a lot more. Maybe Uncle Dick can afford those price increases with his financial empire of rip off brand names behind him but not us on our GA wages.
I love being proved wrong, so could Uncle Dick or any of his henchman/yesmen please explain that is value for money
Agreed that Atc has been fantastic post 27/11 with their verified and unverified radar paint traffic transmissions to IFR A/C.
Happy flying flying DS
If this new system is supposed to give us more for less. Then why are our charts giving us far less information and they are jacking up the ERCs and TACs 300% from $3 to over $9 a chart. What crap. Surely this is less for a lot more. Maybe Uncle Dick can afford those price increases with his financial empire of rip off brand names behind him but not us on our GA wages.
I love being proved wrong, so could Uncle Dick or any of his henchman/yesmen please explain that is value for money
Agreed that Atc has been fantastic post 27/11 with their verified and unverified radar paint traffic transmissions to IFR A/C.
Happy flying flying DS